Right Wing Discussion Thread VII: As Easy As Reich Two Three

[Conserative Morality]

Show of hands, folks:

If there are two dozen people in a room with you, and the only people who see the massive swarm of slugs coming out of the door are you and the two guys you pay to back you up, do you consider the idea that what you're seeing might not be real? That it's more likely you're wrong than a disparite group of outsiders are all wrong for no reason?

When you have five other groups of conflicting and sometimes intersecting opinions and none of them see what you do, should you consider the idea that what you're seeing is a hallucination? A delusion?

FFS it's like Tumblrinas convinced that the world is out to get them. The only difference is one forms a voting bloc and the other doesn't.

[Minzerland II]

Rubio is far from moderate by any reasonable standard. You forget he was a Tea Party spawn who opposes Roe v. Wade, wanted a balanced budget amendment, cut corporate taxes and environmental regulations, end the deptartment of education completely, climate change denier, believes in the 'liberal media' myth, interrogation in Gitmo... the list goes on and on. The only reason he's moderate now is because Cruz is now the blobby face of the radical wing of the party.

Right-libertarians, only supporting limited government when its for things that they like.

That is a gross oversimplification if I ever saw one.

[Conserative Morality]

I think CNN happened to tilt more towards the Democratic ("liberal") side was simply because of Trump's many wild, difficult-to-defend antics. One thing I do like about CNN is that they're open to hearing both sides of an argument. They do challenge a lot of statements from guest speakers, but that's hardly a bias. That's simply trying to bring light to the truth when a lie is suspected.

Opposing Trump isn't inherently liberal. A lot of conservatives hated his guts. And I'm talking more as a general news source than in this election cycle.

[Grand Britannia]

tbh I hate CNN regardless of its position

Almost as much as I hate CA.

[Sanctissima]

Oh BS.

All they do is read a bunch of tweets and act as outrageously as FOX News, just with a liberal agenda instead of a conservative one. The two news channels are par for par on petty trite, low journalistic standards an generally making asses of themselves. The only difference between the two is their political ideologies.

Yeah. Fox News is American right. CNN is American center-right. They aren't even particularly centrist. They pussyfoot around conservatives even in their editorials.

Admittedly I don't watch them much, so maybe your opinion is far more informed on the matter than my own, but I find CNN exceedingly liberal to the point it's almost a parody. This is a news channel that will quite literally give air-time to Health-at-Every-Size activists and played the #GlassCeiling card to no end during the elections.

[Italios]

I think CNN happened to tilt more towards the Democratic ("liberal") side was simply because of Trump's many wild, difficult-to-defend antics. One thing I do like about CNN is that they're open to hearing both sides of an argument. They do challenge a lot of statements from guest speakers, but that's hardly a bias. That's simply trying to bring light to the truth when a lie is suspected.

Opposing Trump isn't inherently liberal. A lot of conservatives hated his guts. And I'm talking more as a general news source than in this election cycle.

They did do more to defend Clinton, but fair point that may have been just to oppose Trump. In terms of general news coverage, they tend to stay moderate on actual news and get opposing viewpoints for discussions.

[Conserative Morality]

Admittedly I don't watch them much, so maybe your opinion is far more informed on the matter than my own, but I find CNN exceedingly liberal to the point it's almost a parody. This is a news channel that will quite literally give air-time to Health-at-Every-Size activists and played the #GlassCeiling card to no end during the elections.

When I was young and ill-informed, CNN was my go-to news source.

Even then it aggravated me. And I wasn't the degenerate liberal I am now.

[Sanctissima]

Admittedly I don't watch them much, so maybe your opinion is far more informed on the matter than my own, but I find CNN exceedingly liberal to the point it's almost a parody. This is a news channel that will quite literally give air-time to Health-at-Every-Size activists and played the #GlassCeiling card to no end during the elections.

When I was young and ill-informed, CNN was my go-to news source.

Even then it aggravated me. And I wasn't the degenerate liberal I am now.

Eh, I've always preferred PBS.

Not exactly the most entertaining source of news, but they're about as unbiased and centrist as it gets.

[Sanctissima]

Right-libertarians, only supporting limited government when its for things that they like.

That is a gross oversimplification if I ever saw one.

To be frank, it's not wrong.

I mean, there's very few tea-party folk who are up in arms against big government for reasons other than taxes and firearm ownership.

[Conserative Morality]

Eh, I've always preferred PBS.

Not exactly the most entertaining source of news, but they're about as unbiased and centrist as it gets.

PBS is good. I usually use overseas news sources. Outside perspectives aren't less biased, but they can be more emotionally detached in observation.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Admittedly I don't watch them much, so maybe your opinion is far more informed on the matter than my own, but I find CNN exceedingly liberal to the point it's almost a parody. This is a news channel that will quite literally give air-time to Health-at-Every-Size activists and played the #GlassCeiling card to no end during the elections.

When I was young and ill-informed, CNN was my go-to news source.

Even then it aggravated me. And I wasn't the degenerate liberal I am now.

Out of pure unadulterated curiosity, CM. What type of Liberal are you? Social, Classical, somehow a mix.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, I've always preferred PBS.

Not exactly the most entertaining source of news, but they're about as unbiased and centrist as it gets.

PBS is good. I usually use overseas news sources. Outside perspectives aren't less biased, but they can be more emotionally detached in observation.

True, and BBC's reasonably good in that regard.

I watch CBC quite a bit too, since I'm Canadian and all, but my preference has always been PBS. To be honest, it's probably due to nostalgia from watching Mr. Rogers.

[Conserative Morality]

Out of pure unadulterated curiosity CM. What type of Liberal are you? Social, Classical, somehow a mix.

Generally count myself as a social liberal or social democrat. I have some Neocon sympathies mixed in there.

[Kravanica]

"liberal media myth"

Bwahahahahaha

I guess CNN, MSNBC, PBS, CBS, The NYT, the HuffPo, etc are all figments of my imagination.

MSNBC, CBS, HuffPo.

Literally all the rest aren't liberal, and the fact that you think they are says a lot about you, your views, and your persecution complex.

Right, right. The NYTimes which hasn't endorsed a Republican since Eisenhower isn't liberal. They endorsed that doofus John Kerry because they're conservative.

And the Clinton News Network isn't liberal either. You have a very distorted version of reality. I guess Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper are just right-wingers.

Also, why does everyone have a seizure at the thought of a balanced budget?

Because balanced budgets are untenable. I could go into detail, but I feel like it'd be wasted here.

They're perfectly tenable. The issue is the government simply doesn't want to move towards one.

[East Catalina]

MSNBC, CBS, HuffPo.

Literally all the rest aren't liberal, and the fact that you think they are says a lot about you, your views, and your persecution complex.

Right, right. The NYTimes which hasn't endorsed a Republican since Eisenhower isn't liberal. They endorsed that doofus John Kerry because they're conservative.

And the Clinton News Network isn't liberal either. You have a very distorted version of reality. I guess Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper are just right-wingers.

Because balanced budgets are untenable. I could go into detail, but I feel like it'd be wasted here.

They're perfectly tenable. The issue is the government simply doesn't want to move towards one.

They couldn't move toward one if they had guns to their heads forcing them to.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Rubio is moderate though.

Rubio is far from moderate by any reasonable standard. You forget he was a Tea Party spawn who opposes Roe v. Wade, wanted a balanced budget amendment, cut corporate taxes and environmental regulations, end the deptartment of education completely, climate change denier, believes in the 'liberal media' myth, interrogation in Gitmo... the list goes on and on. The only reason he's moderate now is because Cruz is now the blobby face of the radical wing of the party.

And Trump is not extreme. That's mainly a fabrication of both the liberal media and a minority of his supporters

Trump's not extreme. Trump is deluded, narcissistic, corrupt, and openly flaunts the democratic traditions of our country. But he's not extreme. I would prefer an extremist, to be honest. Pence 2016

Also 'liberal media' lol

All of those things Rubio stands for I do not consider extreme. Nowhere near as extreme as some other Tea Party folks. I am very opposed to his economic and environmental policies. But I recognize that does not make him far right.

As for Liberal Media, what Kravanica said, basically.

Although I don't think all of the MSM is necessarily on the side of the leftists. There are very strong paleoconservative and National Liberal Populist News outlets in there as well such as Fox News, The National Review, Brietbart, The Blaze, Rush Limbaugh and other very widely listened to talk show hosts pretending to be rebels.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Out of pure unadulterated curiosity CM. What type of Liberal are you? Social, Classical, somehow a mix.

Generally count myself as a social liberal or social democrat. I have some Neocon sympathies mixed in there.

Ahhhh, That explains your degeneracy.

[Jochizyd Republic]

You've got to be kidding me.

CNN is the most center-right inoffensive milquetoast piece of shit media outlet there is.

Uh. What do you consider center right? because they're pretty strongly center left, at least.

[Italios]

Generally count myself as a social liberal or social democrat. I have some Neocon sympathies mixed in there.

Ahhhh, That explains your degeneracy.

Now, that's a little rich. It's hardly fair to call someone else a degenerate when you spend your spare time making Polandballs of yourself.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

You've got to be kidding me.

CNN is the most center-right inoffensive milquetoast piece of shit media outlet there is.

Uh. What do you consider center right? because they're pretty strongly center left, at least.

Capitalism.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Ahhhh, That explains your degeneracy.

Now, that's a little rich. It's hardly fair to call someone else a degenerate when you spend your spare time making Polandballs of yourself.

W-what....what, I do no such thing.

[Luminesa]

Admittedly I don't watch them much, so maybe your opinion is far more informed on the matter than my own, but I find CNN exceedingly liberal to the point it's almost a parody. This is a news channel that will quite literally give air-time to Health-at-Every-Size activists and played the #GlassCeiling card to no end during the elections.

When I was young and ill-informed, CNN was my go-to news source.

Even then it aggravated me. And I wasn't the degenerate liberal I am now.

I think we have only ever had CNN on at my place if something horrible has happened. Like 9/11 or the Sandy Hook shooting.

Otherwise...erm...I haven't watched anything in a while. Every now and then my sister will have one of the stations on in her room and I'll watch it.

Now I get most of my news from here.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

When I was young and ill-informed, CNN was my go-to news source.

Even then it aggravated me. And I wasn't the degenerate liberal I am now.

I think we have only ever had CNN on at my place if something horrible has happened. Like 9/11 or the Sandy Hook shooting.

Otherwise...erm...I haven't watched anything in a while. Every now and then my sister will have one of the stations on in her room and I'll watch it.

Now I get most of my news from here.

I only see CNN at my university's dining hall. I read the Blade. I read MSN news.
I go on NSG. I think the last two are responsible for amplifying my heart rate.

[Luminesa]

Show of hands, folks:

If there are two dozen people in a room with you, and the only people who see the massive swarm of slugs coming out of the door are you and the two guys you pay to back you up, do you consider the idea that what you're seeing might not be real? That it's more likely you're wrong than a disparite group of outsiders are all wrong for no reason?

When you have five other groups of conflicting and sometimes intersecting opinions and none of them see what you do, should you consider the idea that what you're seeing is a hallucination? A delusion?

FFS it's like Tumblrinas convinced that the world is out to get them. The only difference is one forms a voting bloc and the other doesn't.

How about this? Let's have five people who all saw a crime scene and are being brought-in for questioning. You, Felrik, UMN, Italios, and Jochi. The crime scene was in the French Quarter. Two people got into a fight that turned into a riot. You were at Antoine's eating, Felrik was texting on his phone from the Flea Market nearby, UMN was looking through St. Louis (no Orthodox churches in the Quarter, UMN, sorry), and Italios and Jochi were at Hard Rock Cafe. All of you saw the incident from different locations. All of you have different viewpoints on the story. You and UMN happen to know some of the rioters. Are you going to all tell the exact same story about what happened? Probably not. Does that mean that what none of you saw was real? No. What you all saw was one event, two of you are likely to have some sort of bias about the people involved, and all of you are going to tell slightly different stories about how it started or what you saw.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

Show of hands, folks:

If there are two dozen people in a room with you, and the only people who see the massive swarm of slugs coming out of the door are you and the two guys you pay to back you up, do you consider the idea that what you're seeing might not be real? That it's more likely you're wrong than a disparite group of outsiders are all wrong for no reason?

When you have five other groups of conflicting and sometimes intersecting opinions and none of them see what you do, should you consider the idea that what you're seeing is a hallucination? A delusion?

FFS it's like Tumblrinas convinced that the world is out to get them. The only difference is one forms a voting bloc and the other doesn't.

How about this? Let's have five people who all saw a crime scene and are being brought-in for questioning. You, Felrik, UMN, Italios, and Jochi. The crime scene was in the French Quarter. Two people got into a fight that turned into a riot. You were at Antoine's eating, Felrik was texting on his phone from the Flea Market nearby, UMN was looking through St. Louis (no Orthodox churches in the Quarter, UMN, sorry), and Italios and Jochi were at Hard Rock Cafe. All of you saw the incident from different locations. All of you have different viewpoints on the story. You and UMN happen to know some of the rioters. Are you going to all tell the exact same story about what happened? Probably not. Does that mean that what none of you saw was real? No. What you all saw was one event, two of you are likely to have some sort of bias about the people involved, and all of you are going to tell slightly different stories about how it started or what you saw.

There's a trope for that.
And it will take interviews and cameras and neutral observers to sort it all out.